2 ms·

> Perhaps it didn't "start" with "off-color ribbing" but the usage of 'jokes' Hutus and Tutsi violence didn't start at jokes. It started with German and Belgia

by Ygg2 6y ago

> Perhaps it didn't "start" with "off-color ribbing" but the usage of 'jokes' Hutus and Tutsi violence didn't start at jokes. It started with German and Belgian colonists literally preferring one group over the other. Raising animosity between two groups of essentially genetically same people. Hutus used the identity cards colonists left to target their purges. I'd say those influenced genocide way, way more, than some radio jokes. Edit: I think it's easier to believe that if we didn't make a jokes here and there we could have prevented an atrocity. It's an easy and quick solution to a complex question. I think the situation was way more messy and way more muddy. Jokes didn't help but stopping them wouldn't have stopped the genocide.

jariel 6y ago
Although colonialism played a role, 'it started' before that. It's fair to at least 'talk about' the 'pyramid of hate' and maybe 'believe in it' so as to 'make a point'. But I don't think it's ok to accuse regular, well-meaning employers of 'holding up systems of White Supremacy'. It's also basically tone-deaf for an executive, facing a 'sensitive moment' to challenge claims of racism with 'reverse racism' - even if the executive might have a rhetorical point - it's just going to inflame the situation. I think the execs should have basically 'not acted out of contempt', said some conciliatory things and moved on. Even if they had a legit point to make, they're supposed to be 'bigger than that'. So I'm not sure if it's worthwhile to dig into the rhetoric, but rather, they should have just found a way past the issue. Finally, it's a good example of how toxic this stuff can be.